Remind me again why guns are a good thing, and how guns make us safe?

human and natural right. If you believe in a woman's right to self determination when it comes to abortion, then you must also believe in anyone's right to self determination when it comes do defending yourself. That is if you are operating from a basic principle, not some ideology.

Those of us who feel a gun is useful will exercise our right to arm ourselves.

To this case is that the focus is entirely on what the victim did wrong. The police are essentially being given a pass on shooting an innocent homeowner (were you taught in class to identify your target before firing). We have seen police shoot armed felons face greater scrutiny than they are receiving in threads here.

Between the victim blaming in the threads you refer to and the obligatory gun humper label that has been applied (apparently a person who uses a firearm to end an attack on a child qualifies as a gun humper) one could infer that some people believe the victim simply 'got what he deserved'. Unlike other cases where police have shot someone by mistake, this one is no big deal.

If not, why not? If you do, why?

Nor would I as mistakes can be made. Although from what I have read it is unclear if he was even aware the police had arrived

When police arrive on a scene and encounter a person with a gun in their hand is that sufficient justification to open fire?

Do the officers who fired have any responsibility or is this simply a tragic mistake with the fault at the feet of the homeowner?

Your comment:

"Although from what I have read it is unclear if he was even aware the police had arrived "

Speculation as the only person who can answer that is now dead. But even it was verified that he was unaware that his wife called 911, than that points to lack of preparation and training.

"When police arrive on a scene and encounter a person with a gun in their hand is that sufficient justification to open fire? "

As you say, mistakes can be made and it does happen so that's why many strongly advise not to have a weapon in hand when the police do arrive. Your question will not make anyone bullet proof or bring them back from the dead.

"Do the officers who fired have any responsibility or is this simply a tragic mistake with the fault at the feet of the homeowner? "

That's for the inquiry to determine but it can be reasonably assumed that the homeowner would be alive today had he followed basic home defense procedures and had that training so ingrained that it'd be second nature.

I do grant that. Bringing up the quality of the door is irrelevant in my opinion.

In our perfect world of being able to calmly review the situation from the comfort of a chair, or in my case sitting in front of a grill full of cooking brats going out to meet the police with the gun and a hand was a serious and ultimately fatal mistake.

On the other hand I have been in a similar situation and my analogous role would be in that of the police. I know what it is to come up on a person who you are aware is armed and potentially hostile. I know how quickly decisions to shoot or don't shoot must be made. I also know that you can identify your target in a very, very short amount of time and choose whether or not to shoot, if you have prepared yourself.

In my eyes the greater burden of preparation falls on the person whose job description includes encountering violent and chaotic scenes. It should not be up to the victims to protect themselves from the police. In other cases we do not ask that of them yet this one it seems we have inverted the paradigm.

Now it is entirely possible some action was taken by the deceased that what justify the police firing such as he came out pointing the gun at them. Were I on the inquiry board I would be asking some very tough and pointed questions of the officers requiring them to fully justify their choices and actions.

Your comment:

"Bringing up the quality of the door is irrelevant in my opinion. "

I do think the quality of the door(s) is very important as it should be part of the overall home defense plan as it's often the first line of defense against a home invader. A standard exterior door offers almost no defense against a home invader. Regardless of where one stands of the issue of private ownership of guns, reinforced doors ought to be a priority for those who feel home security is a need.

Your comment:

"In my eyes the greater burden of preparation falls on the person whose job description includes encountering violent and chaotic scenes. "

A homeowner who has a gun for protection has it because they feel there is a possibility of violent and chaotic actions being perpetrated against themselves or others, either in their homes or outside of their homes. So I would argue that the burden of preparation falls equally on both the police and the armed citizen.

I wouldn't assume anyone with a gun has that primarily for protection. Some folks just like to shoot. I mostly chalk this up to bad decisions in bad situations. There are many reasons why a person may have a gun and not trained for extreme situations. I don't know the particulars in this case other than what I read. It is my opinion that the average cop (I have friends with Philly PD) qualifies once a month at the range. Situational training is less often. I believe as the medical oath says, "First, do no harm." I grant that accidents will always happen but, IMHO, police should be compelled to evaluate what has happen in order to learn from what has taken place. After a shooting incident like this, those involved need to be debriefed and thoroughly engaged in similar mock situations and in the classroom to reason through seeing options and alternatives. Those that can't make these assessments and evaluations and learn from training don't belong in these types of situations.

Have a nice night.

Is there a sarcasm tag missing here? This was some deranged person who was trespassing. We have a law against that. We have laws against assault, murder, speeding and stealing library books but all that stuff still happens.

Laws are principally for the courts to use in convicting criminals. Gun-control is a myth. Laws do not equal control. Aside from self-control, control is a myth.

Just my 2 cents.